Paleocurrents: the 'diverse' features of the GC were laid via rapid, correlated flow

^ Whether it was tsunamis or continental scale tectonic slopes the Paleozoic tells a story of vast spatial coordination. But we are plauged by a lack accesible clear presenation of all the data. Even Chadwick's site doesn't distinguish between marine and non-marine.You forgot to address my qustion on paleosoils from last post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Whether it was tsunamis or continental scale tectonic slopes the Paleozoic tells a story of vast spatial coordination. But we are plauged by a lack accesible clear presenation of all the data. Even Chadwick's site doesn't distinguish between marine and non-marine.

​

You forgot to address my qustion on paleosoils from last post.

---

So, TB, if you have all these surges and tsunamis etc., why do we have currents in only one direction. Seems that we should have at least two dominant directions. Also, since we are dealing with surges, can you tell us at what point during all of these surges the entire planet was submerged and how long that submersion lasted?

I do plan to be able to get to this stage (primarily via mainstream and creaitonts reading). At this point all I can say is that the more I read mainstream the more I am convinced that the nature of the geological column is more compatible with the Genesis Flood than mainstream explanations. Tas Walker seems to have the most detailed empirical flood model whereas Baumgardner et al have the most tectoncially detailed model. Primarily I'm wanting to read mainstream and form my own impression. Anything I said now would be pure speculation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I do plan to be able to get to this stage (primarily via mainstream and creaitonts reading). At this point all I can say is that the more I read mainstream the more I am convinced that the nature of the geological column is more compatible with the Genesis Flood than mainstream explanations. Tas Walker seems to have the most detailed empirical flood model whereas Baumgardner et al have the most tectoncially detailed model. Primarily I'm wanting to read mainstream and form my own impression. Anything I said now would be pure speculation.

---

Are you implying that you haven't said anything yet?Good luck in your reading. However, I am concerned that you do not have the background to understand what you are reading and prefer to misinterpret or misrepresent what you see.For example, no one is convinced that a surging flood would leave evidence of a single flow direction. This is not argued persuasively by your scenario. You are stretching on this. However, you have seen a few flow diagrams that you now interpret to be flood surges. I seriously doubt that you have seen ANY evidence in the field of ANY type of flow, and yet here you are an expert on paleocurrents because you have a 'gut feeling.'

EdgeThere's a slight differnce between noting that the true nature of the geological column is vast non-marine innundations and vast fresh water flood deposits and proposing a detailed model! The first is something that any scientist can do by reading the literature, the second is a day time job! Nevertheless the first is a non-trivial result for me and gives me confidence in the detailed work of career flood geologists.If I am stretching on the paleocurrents then mainstream explanations are stretching far more. I came to my conclusions on paleocurrents from my reading last (S. hemisphere) summer. Since then I found that AIG/ICR geologists and especially Chadwick have come to the same conclusions.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
There's a slight differnce between noting that the true nature of the geological column is vast non-marine innundations and vast fresh water flood deposits and proposing a detailed model! The first is something that any scientist can do by reading the literature, the second is a day time job! Nevertheless the first is a non-trivial result for me and gives me confidence in the detailed work of career flood geologists.

---

Even thought there are so many items that they cannot explain?

quote:

---

If I am stretching on the paleocurrents then mainstream explanations are stretching far more. I came to my conclusions on paleocurrents from my reading last (S. hemisphere) summer. Since then I found that AIG/ICR geologists and especially Chadwick have come to the same conclusions.

---

Specifics, please. You have not given us anything that a first year geology student couldn't answer.

Edge, there's almost no point. Non-marine paleocurrents correlated across sheets that stretch over half of your continent get written of by mainstream scientists as hundreds of parallel streams. And you guys think the correlated paleocurrents in the marine paleozoic strata are normal for epeiric seas.That is your position - fine - but let it be recorded that that is your position! I am sure that you are scientitfically completely incorrect on both of these points. And if you are so confident in your interpretation then I will do no more work to convince you otherwise.And I do not deny that this issue needs to be looked at more closely. I would love Chadwick (or dare I say a mainstream geologist) to collate continent wide paelocurrent data into marine vs non-marine bed by bed data.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Edge, there's almost no point. Non-marine paleocurrents correlated across sheets that stretch over half of your continent...

---

Half the continent? What about the other half? Once again, I must explain that the currents you see plotted are prevailing currents and that there is a lot of diversity of current directions in any data set. This is due to an overall westward paleoslope on the west side of the original Appalachian Mtns. Also, these are probably from non marine sediments, though you do not specify exactly what they are. Also, what happened to your argument that these non-marine sediments are an insignificant part of the record?Furthermore, in order to indicate a worldwide flood, you need to show a consistent pattern around the entire world. You and wmscott seemt to have a problem understanding what evidence is necessary to support your points. To him, whale bones found at 700 feet in elevation are evidence for a worldwide flood! You position is little better.

quote:

---

... get written of by mainstream scientists as hundreds of parallel streams.

---

Once again, I will ask you: how many streams do you think there are in the Amazon basin on the east side of the Andes? One? Two? Hundreds? Maybe even thousands? If I measured current directions, do you think I would get a prevailing direction somewhere to the north and east? Would they not cover about half of a continent?

quote:

---

And you guys think the correlated paleocurrents in the marine paleozoic strata are normal for epeiric seas.

---

You have not shown current directions for any epeiric seas that I can tell. I thought you were talking about the nonmarine sediments. If you think there are such currents in epeiric seas, then I would like you to show me the current directions in the Mancos Shale and then show how they are coordinated with those you have already discussed.

quote:

---

That is your position - fine - but let it be recorded that that is your position! I am sure that you are scientitfically completely incorrect on both of these points.

---

You have yet to show us any such thing, other than state that your intuitive reaction is that the biblical flood is a better model than the mainstream theory. That is ALL you've got.

quote:

---

And if you are so confident in your interpretation then I will do no more work to convince you otherwise.

---

As far as I can tell, you haven't done any work yet. You have simply reacted to partial information and relied upon your gut reaction. On the other hand, some of us have taken years of geology classes and spent more years in the field with concepts that actually work. And yet your are so confident that we are dead wrong.

quote:

---

And I do not deny that this issue needs to be looked at more closely. I would love Chadwick (or dare I say a mainstream geologist) to collate continent wide paelocurrent data into marine vs non-marine bed by bed data.

---

You have seen some of this data and it clearly indicates some divergent directions that you feel compelled to ignore. You also have not considered that this data is from a relatively small slice of time and a small area of the world. Neither have you shown us what type of sediments these measurements are found from. Then you have completely ignored our explanations and attributed it all to some deep geological mystery.Now, please tell us when these surges finally innundated the entire world and how long the innundation lasted. The tell us how you developed nonmarine sedimentary rocks when the entire world was a marine environment. I would also like to see where in the bible there is word of surging oceans.

​

[This message has been edited by edge, 06-28-2002]

Thank you, Edge, for (more or less) writing the message I didn't feel up to doing.

quote:

---

Once again, I must explain that the currents you see plotted are prevailing currents and that there is a lot of diversity of current directions in any data set. This is due to an overall westward paleoslope on the west side of the original Appalachian Mtns.

---

TB, remember the paleocurrent diagrams from Pettijohn? Although most of those had a general northwest direction, they was a considerable range of readings varying from that general direction.

quote:

---

Also, these are probably from non marine sediments, though you do not specify exactly what they are

---

I also suspect that the paleocurrent data is from non-marine sediments.In general, TB is taking the vaguest of data, and making the grandest of conclusions. IMO, until more precise data is presented, there is no basis for further discussion on the topic.Side note: Joe Meert has related information at:
http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=7&t=18&m=152#152Moose------------------
BS degree, geology, '83
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Old Earth evolution - Yes
Godly creation - Maybe

Just a few observations on this thread...Here is a quote from Pettijohn that Tranquility Base seems to think shows that paleocurrents of the Paloezoic era were constant:"The stability or persistence of a particular paleocurrent system through time.."As you can see, that is not what Pettijohn says. Pettijohn refers to 'stability or persistence' of a paleocurrent system
through time, not a constant paleocurrent direction through time. As usual, TB lacks the background to critically analyze what TB is reading in the geological literature.I am also amused that TB has frequently mentioned that our 'kindergartners' are not taught the correct version of geological events and that pelagic and epeiric seas are given a minimal role in development of the geological column, while non-marine, swamp-type environments are somehow extremely exaggerated. In contrast to this viewpoint, I am presently reading Windows into the Earth by Smith and Siegel (2000, p33), in which they specifically mention the relative amounts of time for deep-sea sedimentation and the presence of epeiric seas in the Cretaceous. I am not sure where TB gets his information, but I have not seen any particular bias toward 'swamp-type' deposition in the geological literature; nor do I see what the motive would be for doing so.

EdgeI suspect that most of the paleocurrents are marine but the cyclothem currents measured are fresh water in sandstone and if you really think that there were hundreds and thousands of streams sperated by hundreds of metres feel free. This is not what happened. There were periodic waves of fresh water that deposited these sandstones across half of your continent.I will post here if I find new data.

MooseThe data on cyclothems alone is sufficient to raise a lot of doubt in the mainstream explanations of vast non-marine beds and cyclothems in particular.If these things don't trouble you, fine. I beleive both you and edge are completely mistaken about your understandings of paleocurrents. The non-marie sandstone paelocurrents indicate that the entire sandstone bed was laid via a SW flow. You can go anywhere in the bed and on average it will be SW. The idea of rivers is totally ludicrous. You cannot use paleoslope explanations because you have a lake there periodically (50 times or so).

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2002]

EdgeThe paleocurrent system through time? Of course we are talking about a correlation of a 2D vector map over time! But Pettijohn's own figures show consistency at a particular geographical point over time. What point were you actually trying to make Edge?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I suspect that most of the paleocurrents are marine but the cyclothem currents measured are fresh water in sandstone ...

---

You suspect so eh? Well, that's not very convincing. Let us know when you get real evidence.

quote:

---

...and if you really think that there were hundreds and thousands of streams sperated by hundreds of metres feel free.

---

That isn't what I said, but if you feel you must misrepresent what I said, please feel free.

quote:

---

This is not what happened.

---

And no one said it was. You simply do not understand the fluvial depositional system.

quote:

---

There were periodic waves of fresh water that deposited these sandstones across half of your continent.

---

You have sandstone beds that you can trace half way across the continent? I know some sedimentologists that want to talk to you.

quote:

---

I will post here if I find new data.

---

You mean that feelings, gut reactions and suspicions are not good enough?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The paleocurrent system through time? Of course we are talking about a correlation of a 2D vector map over time! But Pettijohn's own figures show consistency at a particular geographical point over time. What point were you actually trying to make Edge?

---

Perhaps I misunderstood. Weren't the paleocurrents for a segment of Paleozoic time? Also, as I remember them, they were not consistent all the way across the continent and neither were they constant, as shown by the Pettijohn diagrams. My point is that you have not shown the current directions to be constant for any significant part of the geological column, nor have you shown them to be consistent over the entire area of North America. At some point you still need to show us evidence that the velocities were significantly different and higher than modern currents and that they were measured in marine sediments. I have been asking for this data for weeks now.